HeloDude

Parents should be in charge of raising children, not the government. But you can be for conscription if you want. Hell, why are we spending so much money on our military when we can just conscript people and pay them half of what we pay them right now?

Have you watched the news lately? We’ve already lost sense of ourselves and requiring women to be drafted, just as men, wouldn’t be close to the craziness that’s being passed off as normal in today’s society. Besides, if women can do any job in the military that a man can do, then they should be just as fair game. Full disclosure—I’m 100% against the draft (ie conscription) as it is a form of slavery, so I don’t want to see men or women ever forced into a job against their will. I’ve mentioned this before on here and have had the back and forth, so before someone comments, just read those posts and we can save each other the time as you won’t change your mind and neither will I.

In other news, here is Schumer trying to show you that he’s just an ordinary guy who knows how to grill hamburgers. What’s funny is that I’m sure a few of his top advisors looked at this picture before giving the thumbs up that it was good for social media, which means those same people are just as clueless when it comes to operating a grill. Personally I don’t really care if a politician knows how to do basic grilling or not, I just don’t like them trying to gaslight me that they’re “just like us” when they’re clearly not.

Make no mistake, his handlers with have him on the really good stuff (drugs) for the debate. If I’m Trump, I would let Biden talk as much as possible, but with Trump, that probably won’t happen.

I agree with the 2A…that’s being principled. You think “the founders weren’t able to consider modern weaponry”, which is as far from the Constitution as you can get. It’s the same argument the progressives use for banning semi-auto firearms, and not just the scary “AR-15s”. So if believing that the Constitution shouldn’t always be followed because the founders couldn’t conceive technological advancements then freedom of speech doesn’t apply to the internet, the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to your electronic device, the electoral college shouldn’t exist because who would have thought you would have a state like California compared to a state like Wyoming wrt population and electoral votes…on and on. Change the Constitution if you’d like. But I’ve read it, and it says nothing about “modern weaponry”.

Where did I say I was against a civilian from owning a nuke? If our government is able to have them then why not the people? And yes, I am being very honest. 40%+ of the country literally thinks Trump is like Hitler or whatever, and yet, there’s a good chance he will win, and if so, he can launch a nuke at anytime and at will. And I don’t know too many people that have the ability, money, desire, etc to build a nuclear weapon as a civilian when entire countries can’t even seem to be able to procure one. Maybe Elon could do it? So if you think I’m an idiot, that’s fine—but at least I’m principled, which is more than I can say about you not wanting an American citizen to be able to own a firearm that fires more than one round with a single action of a trigger.

I’m not a historian, but in basic terms (if memory serves), the USSR involvement in Afghanistan initially wasn’t an “invasion” per se, but at least originally an attempt to support the communist government of Afghanistan from failing/losing. Whereas in Ukraine, it was straight up an invasion. Plus technology has changed quite a bit compared to the 1980s, meaning you can do a lot more today with technology vs straight manpower/basic resources, compared to the 80s. So it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges. I have no doubt our massive amount of money is helping the Ukrainians slow down the Russian invasion and is definitely leading to more Russian casualties…my whole argument is that we’re F’ing broke and we have massive problems here (the border, for one), and that’s where I would like to see attention and resources spent before it’s spent on the other side of the globe. And no, we can’t spend massive amounts on both (if either)—our debt is going to make our lives and the lives of our kids more painful than if Russia takes part, half, or all of Ukraine. Side note—took the wife and kid to a pizza/bar place for a late lunch over the weekend. It was a trendier place, but you still had to order at the counter, fill up our own water cups, etc. For two 16” pizzas (we wanted some for leftovers and that was the only size they had since it was after lunch), one salad, a sprite bottle, and a small gelato dessert, it was around $90…I was like “WTF”? Now we do very well, so I just paid it, but the startling factor of how expensive things are is no joke. This is what happens when we have a massive money supply/spending/debt problem.

These same arguments are made as to why you shouldn’t be able to own an AR-15. If it’s so important that our military and LE can have select fire weapons if needed then it’s just as important that civilians be able to own them. You can have your opinions, just don’t claim to be pro-2A.

Why specifically should Americans not be able to go a store, purchase and leave with a firearm that fires more than one round with pull of the trigger?

Shocker. This is the same slippery slope rationalization used to continue to erode our rights. How about the 2nd Amendment means what it means?

But shaving waivers are abundant, and that’s cool…and last I saw, some of these guys don’t just have a super thin beard (ie can’t take a razor directly to their skin) but rather a thick beard. They only get upset at the people they are now allowed yo get upset with in today’s culture.

Some good news today. Not that I’m personally a huge fan of using bump stocks other than for a fun range toy, but it once again tells the ATF that they can’t redefine something just because they don’t like it. Hopefully this will lead to the forced reset triggers being able to be sold again. https://www.fox13news.com/news/bump-stock-ban-struck-down-supreme-court

I’m not a fan of getting involved with redrawing maps, and I’m also not a fan of spending hundreds of billions (really now trillions over the decades) of money that we don’t have to get involved or “help” people half a world away when we have people in need in our country. This is what happens when people say we want to “help”—we get further in debt and get more involved with their politics (rarely does one happen without the other). Eventually we’ll learn when our financial system gets much, much worse, but until then, too many people still want to “help”.

Why don’t you try explaining it in your own words/opinions anyway? If you want to/can. In other news, Zelensky is now plan ing on releasing prisoners to fight in its war.

Some people are pro-cop vs anti-cop…I’m just anti spending more time in cities ran by progressives than I need to.

This is coming from the same administration that said we stand by Israel and her right to defend herself against Hamas…but then said there was a red line or whatever to what Israel could do. Yeah—it’s politics all the time with this administration. Not saying it would be much different with Trump or others, but this current one especially.

It showed where military leadership is, that’s for sure. Everything I’ve seen since the invasion of Iraq (and it only got worse and worse) to today would make me very hesitant to recommend someone join the military, unless it’s for their own personal gain reasons (so risk vs reward), and it’s very sad for me to say this. I’m so glad I’m retired.

Well, it’s not like Yahoo News has been wrong in the past when showing their anti-Trump bias. https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-intel-dem-trump-collusion-russia-well-established-090037417.html

It’s always a crime to intentionally aid someone else in committing a crime. If you support background checks then you’re also part of the problem as you’re along for permission from your government to exercise a right. And I should be able to sell my property to whomever I want. Again, if this guy was interested intentionally aiding criminals in a crime then that itself is the crime, not selling firearms without the government telling him it’s ok to do so. Or tell me how we had required federal background checks in the late 1800s and early 1900s? It wasn’t until the progressives realized they could control people more (and make money off of us) that gun control really started in the 1930s…and then it only go worse from there.

SCOTUS wrote it so that lower courts could use it to overturn gun control laws if they are not in accordance with the decision, and some laws have been overturned. Just because one hasn’t been overturned yet since Bruen doesn’t mean one won’t be in the future. But what bothers me more with your argument is that someone who says they support the 2nd Amendment is also supportive of victimless crime gun control laws and the ATF enforcement of these laws by force.

According to SCOTUS: ”The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The ATF would make criminals out of all of us if they could get away with it.

And to tie this all with the Ukraine stuff, if someone believes that our country’s financial situation is a greater threat to our country than Ukraine being able to have more weapons to fight Russia (I for one believe it is), then you can’t be all for giving Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars without at least massive cuts to other spending areas. And if politicians believe that all this spending is necessary, then sure, vote to raise to taxes…it won’t end well though as we have a spending problem and not a tax problem. At some point we need to wise up with our massively bloated defense and “security” spending for other countries and say enough is enough. Or, we get further in debt, and the monetary system continues to use inflation to fight it and the people (especially the middle and lower class) will continue to have to make harder decisions on what they can afford.

This isn’t surprising at all based all on what she’s been saying the last year. Though I like a lot of what she’s been saying, until she says “I was wrong on…gun control, government spending, taxes, increased government regulation, etc because of X, Y, Z” (don’t forget, she was a Democrat with a voting record and positions on issues), then I still would never vote for her compared to someone else with a stronger record on those issues I just mentioned. Just my $.02.

So you’re for cutting wasteful spending for our children, but all for spending 100 Billion (and I’m assuming more if needed?) for Ukraine? That’s one of the first place we should be cutting spending. That’s why I don’t believe you’re for cutting waste. As for raising taxes—by how much? And I’m sure that won’t also affect economic growth.